Sehwag, the closest thing to Bradman

[viriya]

Slow day at work so thought of playing around with some numbers..

This is probably not news for most but the defining characteristic that separated Bradman from mere mortal batsmen was that once he got set, he really cashed in. He had a similar % of scores below 50 as any other batsmen, but his average 50+ score was an amazing 154.

Checking this stat for the "second" tier of batsmen, an interesting name comes up second.

Player	Avg 50+ Score	Avg 100+ Score
Don Bradman	154	193
Virender Sehwag	114	173
Brian Lara	110	167
Wally Hammond	110	168
Kumar Sangakkara	105	167
Mahela Jayawardene	105	162
Ricky Ponting	101	151
Rahul Dravid	98	152
Garry Sobers	98	146
Sachin Tendulkar	98	145

Complete list: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bradman is still far ahead of the rest but Sehwag is second on the list with an average 50+ score that's 26% lower than Bradman's. Fellow big hundred scorers Lara, Hammond, Sangakkara and Mahela all feature high on the list.

This ties in well with one of Ian Chappell's comments I recall about how Sehwag probably dominates when he is set similar to how Bradman used to. Another similarity is that they both have a much higher strike rate than was the norm of their time. Sehwag striked at 82 in an era where ~55 was typical, Bradman striked at ~60 in an era where ~35-40 was typical.

This makes me think that if there is ever going to be a Bradmanesque batsman in the future he would have a close to run-a-ball strike rate (which takes fatigue out of the equation when building high-scoring innings), with even better shot selection than Sehwag (hand-eye coordination).

 

[hendrix]

It's an interesting point about the strike rate.

Certainly the players with good boundary scoring capabilities often have a penchant for really massive scores. Thinking Gayle, Sehwag, Lara, McCullum etc

 

[marc71178]

Would've been a better list if you included everyone, but then again that wouldn't have shown Sehwag as being anything like the closest to Bradman...

That's before you consider that in terms of number of 50s etc, Sehwag has a far smaller number than a lot of other players.

 

[fredfertang]

Those stats tell me that Sehwag was a bit too ****sure - more circumspection as opposed to whacky-whacky at the start of his innings and who knows what he might have achieved

 

[marc71178]

This is probably not news for most but the defining characteristic that separated Bradman from mere mortal batsmen was that once he got set, he really cashed in. He had a similar % of scores below 50 as any other batsmen, but his average 50+ score was an amazing 154.

Another flaw in this list - Bradman had 47.5% of his innings below 50 whereas nobody else on that list had under 61.7%. Sehwag has far and away the worst percentage of that list as well, just under 70% - so another poor reason to highlight him.

 

[hendrix]

Another flaw in this list - Bradman had 47.5% of his innings below 50 whereas nobody else on that list had under 61.7%. Sehwag has far and away the worst percentage of that list as well, just under 70% - so another poor reason to highlight him.

The exact opposite, actually. It's an excellent reason to highlight him.

 

[marc71178]

How is it an excellent reason? He's relatively speaking nowhere near the others in the list in terms of 50+ scores, and his average when hitting 50 or more doesn't even stand out from the selected group of players.

Then to call him the closest thing to Bradman when in 10 seconds it was possible to find a player who a) gets to 50 a lot more regularly (37% of knocks compared to 30%) and b) averages 133 in his innings over 50 suggests to me a very poor piece of work that is meant to showcase a personal favourite.

 

[hendrix]

How is it an excellent reason? He's relatively speaking nowhere near the others in the list in terms of 50+ scores, and his average when hitting 50 or more doesn't even stand out from the selected group of players.

Then to call him the closest thing to Bradman when in 10 seconds it was possible to find a player who a) gets to 50 a lot more regularly (37% of knocks compared to 30%) and b) averages 133 in his innings over 50 suggests to me a very poor piece of work that is meant to showcase a personal favourite.

You've completely missed the point of his article. He's not calling him the next best thing to Bradman. The title is just an attention grabber. I highly doubt that Sehwag is his personal favourite.

He's saying:
1. An important characteristic of Bradman's was that he could cash in
2. Sehwag, more than any other batsman, shared this characteristic.

Obviously other batsmen were better at other things. But, as you've pointed out, Sehwag compensated for his poorness in getting good scores with his near Bradman-esque ability to cash in.

His final point is to say that to be as good as Bradman you need to share this characteristic as well as be better than Sehwag at the things that he lacked in comparison with other great batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

But Sehwag isn't even the next closest to Bradman so how can he be said to share this characteristic more than any other?

In fact, looking at the numbers he's not even got them right - note Sehwag scrapes into 30th place...

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[hendrix]

hmmm, maybe he's calculated the average as runs per innings?

weird.

 

[viriya]

But Sehwag isn't even the next closest to Bradman so how can he be said to share this characteristic more than any other?

In fact, looking at the numbers he's not even got them right - note Sehwag scrapes into 30th place...

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

I'm ignoring not out innings since that would skew the analysis.

Didn't realize I could do this in stratsguru itself. This is the list:
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[hendrix]

I'm ignoring not out innings since that would skew the analysis.

That's a really silly qualification.

You should just treat the not out innings as if they were out.

 

[viriya]

Another flaw in this list - Bradman had 47.5% of his innings below 50 whereas nobody else on that list had under 61.7%. Sehwag has far and away the worst percentage of that list as well, just under 70% - so another poor reason to highlight him.

Good point, you're right about that, what I actually should've said is that he has the same % of low scores (sub-10) as an average batsmen and not sub-50. This article (which partly inspired the post), has the numbers:
Blogs: What made Bradman click? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[viriya]

That's a really silly qualification.

You should just treat the not out innings as if they were out.

I'm trying to find the average 50+ score a batsman can get.. if I include not outs every 50* score would be unfair on the batsmen. Only considering the out innings shows the actual high score potential of the player.

 

[viriya]

How is it an excellent reason? He's relatively speaking nowhere near the others in the list in terms of 50+ scores, and his average when hitting 50 or more doesn't even stand out from the selected group of players.

Then to call him the closest thing to Bradman when in 10 seconds it was possible to find a player who a) gets to 50 a lot more regularly (37% of knocks compared to 30%) and b) averages 133 in his innings over 50 suggests to me a very poor piece of work that is meant to showcase a personal favourite.

Sehwag is hardly my personal favorite and this post was something I thought of over a few minutes.. It's mainly an attempt to figure out what kind of batsman Bradman would be if he played today. Or in other words what the next Bradman would be like.

The title was obviously not meant to be taken that seriously.. I don't think anyone's remotely close to Bradman when it comes to batting.

 

[hendrix]

Not really. The higher the score the more likely you are to be not out at the end of the innings.

 

[viriya]

I'm trying to find the average 50+ score a batsman can get.. if I include not outs every 50* score would be unfair on the batsmen. Only considering the out innings shows the actual high score potential of the player.

Actually to clarify since I'm looking at the average here with not outs a 50* score would be beneficial - Chanderpaul comes in at #8 in the list that includes not outs - I think we can all agree he wasn't a high scorer..

 

[viriya]

Not really. The higher the score the more likely you are to be not out at the end of the innings.

That's not necessarily true for faster run scorers - Lara for example only had 6 not outs in his entire career.

 

[hendrix]

That's not necessarily true for faster run scorers - Lara for example only had 6 not outs in his entire career.

Well then you're already biasing your stats towards those players.

 

[viriya]

Well then you're already biasing your stats towards those players.

That's a minor point though - the big point is not outs allow a non-high scorer like Chanderpaul to be #8 in the list when he shouldn't be. When you only consider dismissed innings there's no such issue. The downside is of course it would ignore high scoring not out innings - probably the best thing to do is to consider not out innings that are higher than a certain threshold say 100+.